LA/OC's trillion dollar economy (Irvine, Orange: to rent, mortgage, credit)

[CLT4]

Originally Posted by hrpdrp

Smart phones, GPUs, CPUs, SSDs, Aerospace, aren't useful? What state produces something on a large scale that you find so USEFUL that isn't food or oil/gas?


Also, just as an FYI, CA has the largest manufacturing industry in the entire United States.

CA's share of the manufacturing industry in the USA is directly proportional to its share of the population. If it didn't have the largest manufacturing output in raw numbers, it would be woefully under-manufacturing per person. CA is 12.2% of the US population and 12.2% of US manufacturing output.

CA is going to be the largest in most things. It is 41% more populous than 2nd most populous Texas. It takes Texas and #8 Georgia combined to be as populous as California. That is why breaking things down into rates is important to measure how efficient a state is per person, per dollar generated, etc... Texas generates 11.4% of US manufacturing output for example, with 8.62% of the US population.

California is almost the same land area (156,002 sq. miles) as the entire Northeastern United States (162,257 sq mi) that includes 9 states: New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Population wise this region is home to 55,943,073 people vs. 39,250,017 in California.

Just the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are home to 41 million people, roughly 5% more populous than California, despite the 3 states having 36% less land area. GDP wise the three states collectively generate a $2,794,056,000 gross domestic product. California produces a 2,601,167,000 gross domestic product. Despite the three states being only 5% more populous collectively, they collectively generate a GDP 7% larger than California.

There are lots of interesting ways to break down information to make since of the differences between states (hard to do often due to their geographic differences, etc..)

You will also notice states with higher GDP, are state's where rents are highest and home values are the highest. It is impossible for a state with lower rent payments and lower housing prices to have as high a GDP as high cost of living states. This is because the US government uses an accounting standard where all the dollars for landlords are counted towards GDP, and then they take every owner occupied house and calculate the potential the owner could rent the house for. So if you own a home you don't rent, but if you did rent it you COULD rent it for $2,500 per month, that counts toward GDP. If you can rent your home for $2,500 but a person that owns their home in Tennessee can only rent their home for $1,500, you've contributed $1,000 more towards CA's GDP than the person in Tennessee.

This section of the economy (Real Estate and Leasing), is now the largest portion of the US economy. If rent is going up and housing costs are increasing, you will see GDP move up as well. Often times "fastest growing GDP" correlates strongly with "fastest increasing rent and housing prices."

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by majoun

Do you consider Tesla and Space-X to also be "degeneracy"?

Yes. Both of those companies were created by $5 billion in publicly funded subsidies and loans. So yes, they are extreme degeneracy.

Neither company has seen a CENT of profit as of yet, and new projections say Tesla won't be profitable for another 2-3 years.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CLT4

CA's share of the manufacturing industry in the USA is directly proportional to its share of the population. If it didn't have the largest manufacturing output in raw numbers, it would be woefully under-manufacturing per person. CA is 12.2% of the US population and 12.2% of US manufacturing output.

CA is going to be the largest in most things. It is 41% more populous than 2nd most populous Texas. It takes Texas and #8 Georgia combined to be as populous as California. That is why breaking things down into rates is important to measure how efficient a state is per person, per dollar generated, etc... Texas generates 11.4% of US manufacturing output for example, with 8.62% of the US population.

California is almost the same land area (156,002 sq. miles) as the entire Northeastern United States (162,257 sq mi) that includes 9 states: New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Population wise this region is home to 55,943,073 people vs. 39,250,017 in California.

Just the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are home to 41 million people, roughly 5% more populous than California, despite the 3 states having 36% less land area. GDP wise the three states collectively generate a $2,794,056,000 gross domestic product. California produces a 2,601,167,000 gross domestic product. Despite the three states being only 5% more populous collectively, they collectively generate a GDP 7% larger than California.

There are lots of interesting ways to break down information to make since of the differences between states (hard to do often due to their geographic differences, etc..)

You will also notice states with higher GDP, are state's where rents are highest and home values are the highest. It is impossible for a state with lower rent payments and lower housing prices to have as high a GDP as high cost of living states. This is because the US government uses an accounting standard where all the dollars for landlords are counted towards GDP, and then they take every owner occupied house and calculate the potential the owner could rent the house for. So if you own a home you don't rent, but if you did rent it you COULD rent it for $2,500 per month, that counts toward GDP. If you can rent your home for $2,500 but a person that owns their home in Tennessee can only rent their home for $1,500, you've contributed $1,000 more towards CA's GDP than the person in Tennessee.

This section of the economy (Real Estate and Leasing), is now the largest portion of the US economy. If rent is going up and housing costs are increasing, you will see GDP move up as well. Often times "fastest growing GDP" correlates strongly with "fastest increasing rent and housing prices."

Ah, someone who actually thinks for a change. We need more of you here.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CLT4

You will also notice states with higher GDP, are state's where rents are highest and home values are the highest. It is impossible for a state with lower rent payments and lower housing prices to have as high a GDP as high cost of living states. This is because the US government uses an accounting standard where all the dollars for landlords are counted towards GDP, and then they take every owner occupied house and calculate the potential the owner could rent the house for. So if you own a home you don't rent, but if you did rent it you COULD rent it for $2,500 per month, that counts toward GDP. If you can rent your home for $2,500 but a person that owns their home in Tennessee can only rent their home for $1,500, you've contributed $1,000 more towards CA's GDP than the person in Tennessee.

This section of the economy (Real Estate and Leasing), is now the largest portion of the US economy. If rent is going up and housing costs are increasing, you will see GDP move up as well. Often times "fastest growing GDP" correlates strongly with "fastest increasing rent and housing prices."

In other words the GDP is inflated by what all homes could rent for even if not rented.

If rental income of this nature (not accurate) was deducted, where would CA be?

If renting/leasing is the largest section, then CA is not really doing that well in other areas?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by expatCA

In other words the GDP is inflated by what all homes could rent for even if not rented.

If rental income of this nature (not accurate) was deducted, where would CA be?

If renting/leasing is the largest section, then CA is not really doing that well in other areas?

Basically it's called accounting voodoo. Fugazy. Smoke and mirrors.

[CLT4]

Originally Posted by expatCA

In other words the GDP is inflated by what all homes could rent for even if not rented.

If rental income of this nature (not accurate) was deducted, where would CA be?

If renting/leasing is the largest section, then CA is not really doing that well in other areas?

California is doing well and growing in other areas. It is just going to get a bigger boost relative to lower cost of living states due to real estate. Compared to Texas for example, the "Real estate and rental and leasing" sector of GDP compares as following:

CA: $437.8 Billion of GDP [17% of the economy]
TX: $150.7 Billion of GDP [9% of the economy]

Total GDP:
CA: $2.6 Trillion
TX: $1.6 Trillion

In California, the broader sector of the economy that Real estate and rental and leasing falls in also includes finance and insurance. The entire sector only provides 5.9% of California employment, by contributes 20% to GDP in the state. The high values of rent carries this in CA more than other states. In the case of being compared to Texas, CA gets about a $200 billion GDP boost just for having higher rent prices.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by CLT4

California is doing well and growing in other areas. It is just going to get a bigger boost relative to lower cost of living states due to real estate. Compared to Texas for example, the "Real estate and rental and leasing" sector of GDP compares as following:

CA: $437.8 Billion of GDP [17% of the economy]
TX: $150.7 Billion of GDP [9% of the economy]

Total GDP:
CA: $2.6 Trillion
TX: $1.6 Trillion

In California, the broader sector of the economy that Real estate and rental and leasing falls in also includes finance and insurance. The entire sector only provides 5.9% of California employment, by contributes 20% to GDP in the state. The high values of rent carries this in CA more than other states. In the case of being compared to Texas, CA gets about a $200 billion GDP boost just for having higher rent prices.

Excellent.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CLT4

California is doing well and growing in other areas. It is just going to get a bigger boost relative to lower cost of living states due to real estate. Compared to Texas for example, the "Real estate and rental and leasing" sector of GDP compares as following:

CA: $437.8 Billion of GDP [17% of the economy]
TX: $150.7 Billion of GDP [9% of the economy]

Total GDP:
CA: $2.6 Trillion
TX: $1.6 Trillion

In California, the broader sector of the economy that Real estate and rental and leasing falls in also includes finance and insurance. The entire sector only provides 5.9% of California employment, by contributes 20% to GDP in the state. The high values of rent carries this in CA more than other states. In the case of being compared to Texas, CA gets about a $200 billion GDP boost just for having higher rent prices.

OK, now if we deduct the $200 Billion from the GDP where is CA then?

If we deduct the rental "income" from all States that would change a LOT as to genuine GDP. Not saying CA would not still be at the top, but why fudge the figures unless they would drop too much?

It is interesting that last year TX, WA and FL did better than CA.

https://blog.bea.gov/category/gdp-by-state/

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CLT4

California is doing well and growing in other areas. It is just going to get a bigger boost relative to lower cost of living states due to real estate. Compared to Texas for example, the "Real estate and rental and leasing" sector of GDP compares as following:

CA: $437.8 Billion of GDP [17% of the economy]
TX: $150.7 Billion of GDP [9% of the economy]

Total GDP:
CA: $2.6 Trillion
TX: $1.6 Trillion

In California, the broader sector of the economy that Real estate and rental and leasing falls in also includes finance and insurance. The entire sector only provides 5.9% of California employment, by contributes 20% to GDP in the state. The high values of rent carries this in CA more than other states. In the case of being compared to Texas, CA gets about a $200 billion GDP boost just for having higher rent prices.

Wonder how OC would look if we did not use Rental income?

[CLT4]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Wonder how OC would look if we did not use Rental income?

For the LA-OC Metro area, Real Estate and Rental Income is 22% of the metro area GDP.

That compares to 17% for the New York MSA, 14% for the Chicago MSA, and 12% for the Dallas MSA among the top 4 metros.

If you look at GDP per capita:
New York is $82k
LA-OC is $75k
Dallas is $71k
Chicago is $68k

if you excluded real estate rental income from all of the top 4 metros it becomes:
New York: $68k per person
Dallas: $62k
LA: $59k
Chicago: $59k